Why do you need a speaker crossover - discuss

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

The only problem is I would have to build the first one again as it no longer exists. But seeing as I have proved it to myself (who is the only person that really matters to me) I can't be buggered to bother.

So as far as I am concerned the lateral thought has been applied, as it has also been by Paul Hynes who came up with even more elegant and lateral solution that he talked about in another thread. The difference is mine is potentially commercial his is a real classic over the top nerd-dom jobby.

[nat8808]

Well Nat, I find myself in agreement with you on this point.

Goodness! Not really a surprise - I see similarities in the way we think about certain things.

A software patent I was awarded was the outcome of the above, in part. Frankly my invention wasn't very clever at all. The patent attorneys made it look that way to the point that I barely recognised it. The truth is, I just saw a logic-pattern that no one had (apparently) previously done. Serendipity and nothing more.

The point being that the next step-change in speaker refinement might occur in a similar way.

Personally, I thought the 6' line electrostatic driver driving a narrow but 6' vertical horn was the answer. The Beveridge speaker. Without exception, all of my designer and importer pals felt it was the finest evolution of speaker technology. But ....... other matters go it in the way.

Regards

Howard

PS: Neil Bachelor and my son David contributed greatly to the research that led to the patent - as indeed did quite a few of Ian's friends from Latymer.

Even just how people think in terms of cones when talking about speakers shows how much repetative exposure blinkers thought processes - you have to get away from it all to think clearly or, as in your case, come from the outside.

Work environments too are the worse places for any kind of innovation - just a massive positive feedback loop reinforcing opinions and cultures and that then influences business practices. That feeds into the bigger positive feedback loop of the industry as a whole and that in turns feeds back to the work environment..

Richard out of many is in a much better position in the indstry to come up with something new and innovative than many others in the industry so of course I would encourage him to go down his current route of innovation.

Where did Mr Beveridge come from? Another outsider?

Talking of Beveridge.. time to make some tea!

[jandl100]

And that's the empirical evidence that gets dismissed and it can be dismissed easily because you're not an engineer and not talking the right language and nor are you able to suggest a better way of doing things by way of proof.

So are you dismissing subjective opinions of available commercial designs by an experienced listener as irrelevant?

[nat8808]

Well I have my proof, I could play you two versions of the Cube1 speaker one with a *correct* conventional crossover with some of the physical work as in cabinet design and material, and one with the extra mechanical work on the cone and cabinet and just a tweeter protection cap, and it is a large musical difference.

The only problem is I would have to build the first one again as it no longer exists. But seeing as I have proved it to myself (who is the only person that really matters to me) I can't be buggered to bother.

So as far as I am concerned the lateral thought has been applied, as it has also been by Paul Hynes who came up with even more elegant and lateral solution that he talked about in another thread. The difference is mine is potentially commercial his is a real classic over the top nerd-dom jobby.

I'll have to go over to his thread and take a peak at his nerdom jobby - they're my kind of speaker! Just look at Wilson's (don't know his first name) first design, Wilson of Wilson Audio - the esl panels with some B139 box etc - was it the MAXX Mk1?

I think that prooving it to yourself is all that matters in terms of getting on and doing things - hard to progress by committee, especially if they are stuck in an old way of thinking.

Just wanted to quietly disolve the idea that there are real absolutes as that can hamper creative thinking. They're good to use temporarily though to aid a certain concentration or movement in a direction..

[nat8808]

So are you dismissing subjective opinions of available commercial designs by an experienced listener as irrelevant?

Err... had to read that twice.

What I wrote can read the wrong way..

I meant that people do dismiss it unfairly under the guise that that person doesn't know what they're talking about and they're not part of the club.

Whereas those opinions should be listened to.

[electric beach]

Well I certainly don't know what I'm talking about technically, but I used to play in a band and I know what 'live' sounds like!
IMO there are certain qualities such as presence and dynamics that are definative, but an even frequency balance is usually the last thing on offer

What I look for is this definative character as a priority and I would probably accept a cruder version of high fidelity than many. For example, for me a basic is that the sound reaches out into the room, the same way even a quiet note on a real instrument in your room would, so I play at the volume that 'locks' onto the room. Without this, the illusion and everything else falls apart for me. And it sets the scene for movies as well as music - hell, I want all the music in films to sound good as well

I don't claim any innovation, I just look, learn, listen and apply. I'm not there yet but my current 2.1 route is filling me with the most optimism for a system development path so far in 30 years:

- Big double backloaded Horns

- Treated single driver cones

- Seperate Sub bass augmentation

[jandl100]

OMG - a whizzer! The bane of so many "full range" drivers! Yuk.

YMMV

Just shows that it's all subjective! Opinions vary, as ever. It's all down to the compromises that you find acceptable and the very different audio tastes that we have.

[Neil McCauley]

Well now colleagues. I have heard first hand what I believe is the ultimate full-range crossover-less speaker. Not a contradiction in terms I assure you. I did however prior to the exposure feel it was indeed a contradiction in terms.

It’s a long story and I know that some people here get seriously pissed off re long stories here. They complain to the moderators and it seems they value superficiality over a lack of ambiguity. I’m uninterested in getting involved in dumb-arse debates about ideal word-counts and so on. And Marco and his crew don’t need the hassle either. So I’m wondering.

I had thought of posting this on my blog. But then there are a vocal few that don't like me doing that either!

Additionally, and I’ll need guidance on this, I’m not sure that my experiences would fit properly and/or neatly into this thread. So ……… should I start a new thread? Is there any interest?

What I will tell you that this speaker is literally potentially lethal and according to the designer will never be sold outside of South Africa. So, over to you gang.

Howard.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Potentially lethal - well in that case it might have already been discussed as someone here is building one. A valve amp without an output transformer (not an OTL circuit) directly powering the plates of an electrostatic loudspeaker.

Potentially musically exceptional as it gets rid of unnecessary gumph! (stones in the river) The only reason it could never be produced commercially is it carries lethal voltage on it speaker lines, which is the only thing that makes those particular stones necessary.

[electric beach]

Oh go on, go on Howard!

I go to South Africa, I can buy one there and bring it back to kill meself in the comfort of my own home